Lies, lies, lies
The case confronting Mr. Frankfurter and Poland has been brought to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling.
According to Mr. Frankfurter lawyers, he is a good man, who loves animals over anything, vegetarian and one of the best veterinary surgeons from Estonia and Europe, since he moved to Italy and open several practices. However, he is being punished by his ex-lover, Mr. Schnitzelmann who, out of spite, decided to make up a lie saying that in fact, Mr. Frankfurter was not who he preached to be, or is a person who has trained in a slaughterhouse an actual animal lover?
When he wanted to move to Poland and keep on being a vet surgeon there he was encountered with an ugly situation. Polish authorities would not recognize his diploma, arguing that in Estonia, in order to get such recognition a traineeship in a operating room. Thus, since Mr. Frankfurter had done that mandatory traineeship in rather different but probably equally bloody setting, Poland is reluctant to recognize such Diploma. Even more, they consider that Mr. Frankfurter should not have a diploma in the first place.
A big turn of events happened when Mr. Frankfurter lawyers had to agree that he, in fact, did the traineeship in the slaughterhouse. However, they tried to save it by saying that he was forced by his lover. This argument was not convincing for the Court of Poland nor the Advocate General.
One thing is clear, this can pass to the history of spiteful actions from hurt ex-lovers.
Can EU law fix what love has broken?
Andrea González for EUobserver
EU Law: Once Again to the Rescue
After the victory, the applicant’s advocate has given EUobserver an exclusive interview.
Where you certain from the beginning that you would be victorious?
No, at the beginning was really uncertain but the choices the opposing council made in order to support their arguments gave us the feeling that we could win.
What were the weakest points of Romania today?
When it came to discuss the third question about the eviction of Zeynep, they quickly agreed that we were right. Moreover, they were reluctant to consider the principle of proportionality, which is essential in EU law.
At the end, was the GDPR applicable?
Of course, and we have defendedthis perspective from the very beginning and the CJEU judgement supported it.
Do you think that a case like this would have been in such an easy without a legal framework like the one provided by EU law?
Yes, EU law makes things easier and fastens the process of reaching an agreement between parts from different countries.
Finally, you used an analogy to a case of sexual assault in Spain to define the term consent in this case. Do you think that this analogy can set precedent for future cases, whether or not they are about sexual assault, where the issue of consent is in dispute?
There is a clear definition of consent and maybe Romania did not want to read it, but it exists, that is why we brought up the Spanish case of La Manada.The issue here is consent, it is about explicit consent and therefore, the analogy can be made in this or in future cases without regard of whether it is a case of sexual assault or not.
More information tomorrow.
God bless EU law.
Andrea González for EUobserver
Justice has been served for Mr. Piontek
There were three questions to be dealt with in the case of Mr. Piontek. The applicant’s advocates have shown that were not ready to let Romanian Court to get away with the decision of keeping Mr. Piontek and her daughter’s fingerprint nor the eviction of Zeynep from the country.
The question of whether or not Mr. Piontek consented to get his fingerprints taken by Romanian authorities at the border has been a topic of heated discussion. By making an analogy to a case of sexual abuse in Spain, Mr. Piontek’s advocate argued that no consent had been given since even though the applicant did not verbally said no, he was not entirely sure about the legality of such practice when he is a EU citizen entering a EU State.
On the other hand, the Romanian Court, which seemed to have the favor of the other parties to the proceedings has lost such support today in defending their decisions. Even though they tried to defend their case arguing that Mr. Piontek and his daughter could be considered a threat to Romanian security due to their past, this claim was not supported by the Advocate General since the applicant was acquitted and her daughter had no criminal record.
At the end, in an attempt to save the last question regarding the eviction of Zeynep, the Romanian court brought up the fact that, since the family was not formed conventionally but by obligation due to Vulgarian law, considering Zeynep a family member was not consistent with EU law.
Nevertheless, the Advocate General and EU law were on the side of the freedom movement and the protection of a European citizen and the ECJ gave a positive judgement for the applicant, who can finally live happily with his daughter and enjoy the benefits that the European Union provides.
Andrea González for the EUobserver
Mr. Piontek looks for justice against the Romanian court today regarding the violation of his privacy and her daughter’s right to stay in the country.
Mr. Piontek, a EU citizen from Bulgaria has not had an easy life. First, he moved to Vulgaria, a EU neighbor country where he was forced by Vulgarian law to get married to his wife and mother of his daughter Zeynep. Then, due to a tragic mistake, he unconsciously poisoned his wife and was charged with murder. Once his appeal was successful and he was acquitted, he decided to move to Romania with his daughter and start a new life. However, his problems were not over yet. When entering Romania, his and his daughter’s fingerprints were taken without their actual consent. Moreover, some moths after moving to Romania, the country’s authorities also communicate them that Zeynep is now considered an illegal immigrant since she is not a EU citizen.
The Supreme Court of Romania has stated in today’s session that Mr. Piontek could be a danger to the society since, disagreeing with Vulgarian Court decision to leave him free.
Not only they consider him to be a danger for society, but also his daughter. Thus, they are not willing to erase his nor his daughter’s finger print from their system. This argument has been supported by the Netherlands and Germany, who think that they are both a danger to society specially because Zeynep witnessed her mother’s death.
It is not looking good for Mr. Piontek. However, EU law could be on his side from the comments of the Advocate General which puts in question whether Romania has gone against the principle of proportionality.
Further on this issue tomorrow. God bless EU law.
Andrea González, for the EUobserver